Talk:profligate
Merriam-Webster lists this word as, quote: 1 : completely given up to dissipation and licentiousness 2 : wildly extravagant : PRODIGAL a person given to wildly extravagant and usually grossly self-indulgent expenditure
It's just alittle different than the meaning listed here.
I have just added "Wasteful or extravagant" as the first adjective definition. Surely this is the most common use of the word.
Regarding the Merriam-Webster definition quoted in the previous comment, on careful reflection I think that the current Wiktictionary definition is better. The first Merriam-Webster definition is interesting but I think adds meaning to the word which while it may be true in certain contexts is not essential to it.
This highlights the fact that so often subtleties of meaning lie between the words not in them.
Verb sense...[edit]
I am finding myself not buying a verb sense to this word. The quote offered seems much more readily interpretable as adjectival: the stipulation would remove a temptation from seducers profligate and pennyless. I wonder if there's a case of the word being used more clearly as a verb. --GPa Hill 00:00, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, I see. I agree that that citation reads very well with an adjectival construction. We should really get quotations of "profligating" and "profligated". Perhaps from there we can figure out how to search for other forms of the verb. DCDuring TALK 00:24, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
- I took a look and there are plenty of usages to be found at Google Books: [1] DCDuring TALK 00:24, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
This entry has survived Wiktionary's verification process.
Please do not re-nominate for verification without comprehensive reasons for doing so.
Rfv-sense: Verb to drive away. "Cite" looks like it is of attributive use of noun. Contributor may have been confused by it appearing as "to profligate". Webster 1913 showed is as obsolete Latinism. Webster 1828 showed it as "not used." It certainly needs cites. DCDuring TALK 02:19, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
- In conjunction with above discussion this seems to be easily verifiable even if not yet verified. If someone else is inclined to delete it I will not protest but I am leaving it as is. - [The]DaveRoss 00:43, 2 February 2010 (UTC)